GERALDINE LITERARY AND DEBATING SOCIETY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1967, 9 November 1889, Page 3

GERALDINE LITERARY AND DEBATING SOCIETY.

The last meeting for this year's session ef the above society was held in the library of the Greraldine Mechanics' Institute on Wednesday evening last. There were some 20 members present. Mr K. Wilson Smith occupied the chair. As previously announced Mr H. W, Moore read a very ably written and interesting paper on •' The distribution of wealth," of which the following is a synopsis : In commencing his paper Mr Moore said he did not wish bis hearers to look upon what he had written as purely the product of his own brains, as he had borrowed largely from the thoughts and writings of others. The question bad taxed the cleverest men of the day, who had not yet arrived at a satisfactory conclusion, so he considered that to a certain extent plagiarism was excusable, and even a matter of necessity, He hoped, ; however, to be able to lay before them matter which would afford scope for discussion then and reflection afterwards. He divided his subject into three heads—(l) That the present distribution of wealth is unjust. (2) What is the just distribution of wealth 8 (3) The spirit which should animate the distribution of wealth. People would readily agree that the distribution of wealth was unjust. He thought it was fair, as a general principle, to say that he who worked should receive a fair return for his labor, and that •' he who did not sow neither should he reap." He aßked, How often was this principle carried out 1 Why yfas* it that one man had to toil ten or twelve hours a day for a bare livelihood, another who did little or no work got an income of many thousands ? People would tell us that it resulted from the inequalities of human nature, and the difference in the capacities of different men; that it was quite in the nature of things that seme should be poor and some rich, while if we by violent measures iwere to divide the wealth equally we should accomplish nothing but harm, and that in a short space of time there would be inequalities as great as before. Like all false theories this contained a good deal of truth, but a great deal of error. It was undeniably true that under present conditions inequalities of fortune would tend to reassert themselves, even if arbitrarily levelled for the moment, but that did not prove that the conditions from which this tendency to inequality springs could not be altered. Mr Moore then went on to give a few instances of the injustice of the present distribution of wealth. A man made a large fortune, perhaps by honest work, though it weuld generally be found that large fortunes had in them' the elements of monopoly, spoliation, or gambling. Did he do any good with it? No ; he was proud of haying so much money, and ho added to it and hoarded it up. He knew he could not take it with him when he died, and in order that he may be gratified by the thought that hie name and title are to descend to succeeding generations unimpaired he loaves it all to bis son. The son has been brought np in the lap of Inxary, and he spends the whole of it on his ©wn idlepleaßure. That son has not earned that money by work j he had not sown, bnt he reaped a plentiful harvest. Some men made fortunes by a system of monopoly. They monopolised lands, whole streets of towns, etc. Some of their houses were very large, and those who occupied them could well afford to pay for them, while others were >n the back slume, and he eared nothing whether the tenements were fit to live in or not. He drove about and and enjoyed himself on the hard-won eanrings of the poor, which he appropriated in rent. Other men monopolised landß in the country. Men who were willing and able to work, and work hard on a pieoe of land, were not able to got hold of an acre, and they bad to tell their laborß to the landowners at just what price the latter pleased, and those terms were just enough to support life in the most miserable fashion. They lived in wretched hovels, and had to work from morning till night and their wives must do the same. Mr Moore also instanced the monopoly of rings, snch as the corn ring, etc. He pointed out the monopoly by whisb the fsther of Mr Jubilee Benson made bis money, with the result that the son gambled it all away. Such men did no good to the community, but simply heaped up enormous fortunes by robbing the poor. Some men made wealth by a system of spoliation. They owned a large amount of land, and let it out in farms. After * time, when the hard-working tenants had considerably improved the land, the owner thought he would be able to get a higher rent, and the tenant was told he must pay the same or move out. The abominable sweating system was also Bpoken>f whore, say, a tailor, not content with cutting prices down to the lowest, Institutes a system of fines. He gave a woman, say, a coat to make with striot injunctions to have it finished by a certain time, but withheld the buttons till it was not possible for her to finish it in time, and then she was fined. Mr Moore did not advocate threatening measures, but he ■ said they could not wonder at the late and that men sheuld rebel against the injustice which prevailed. And yet some people said that the d : stribution of wealth was not unjust, and that if a man was poor it was his own fault. " Why do they cry for bread ?" asked the innocent French princess when she heard the roar of the fierce, hungry, French mob ; »• If they have no bread, why don't they eat cake?" Why are not the poor thrifty and-virtuous, and wise and temperate ? one hears wherever in luxurious homes such subjects are mentioned. What was this but the question of the French princess ? Thrift and virtue, and wisdom and temperance are not the fruits of poverty. An . English writer had divided all men into three degrees, workers, beggars, and thieves. There were only three ways by which any individual could get wealth : by work, by gift, or by theft. He thought he had said enough to show that it was the beggars and thieves that got most of the wealth, aod not the workers. He was not denouncing the rich. The capitalist was a helper if he was not a monopolist. A person might safely be allowed to get as rich as be could if he did not deßpoil others. There were, however, deep wrongs in the present constitution of society. Wrongs resulting from bad adjustments which were in our power to amend by the correction of abuses and the jnßt distribution of wealth. Mr Moore stated here that his ideas were chiefly drawn from "The Gospel of Wealth," a pamphlet by Mr Andrew Carnegie, the American millionaire. He did not favor indiscriminate almsgiving, for that would,

only e&courage the vices they Bought new to suppress. The ideal booisl state was that in which each got id proportion to bit contribution to the general steak. All were workers who contributed to the general good of the community, whether they worked with their heads er with their hands, but all should receive a proportionate return for their labor. Seeing that wealth had been thrown into the hands of a comparative few, the qooation was What was the proper mode of administering that wealth 1 Ha wished it to be understood that it was fortunes that were referred to, not moderate sums saved by years of effort, the returns from which were required for the comfortable maintenance and education of families. This was not wealth, but only competence, whieh it should be the aim of all to acquire. There were but three ways in whieh wealth could be disposed of. Men could leave it to their families, bequeath It for public purposes, or administer it during their live*. The first he considered injudicious, as tha general result of wealth being left to the eldest son was that be squandered it in folly and extravagance for bis own pleasure. Very litt'e of it went for the good of the community. He I did not belieye in sons being leit great I fortunes. He believed in moderate incomes being left for wives and daughters, and very moderate incomes indeed for sons, who should be educated to work with their hands or heads. As to leaving wealth to public institutions it very ofleu turned out that the real object sought by the teßtator was not attained. Men who left money in this way might very fairly be thought men who would not have left it at all had they been able to take it with them. He did not believe in this mode. If a man hoarded up his estates till his death they should be taxed, and these taxes should bo gradnoted, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums for dependants, and increasing rapidly as the amount swelled until ef the millionaire's hoard, as of Shyleck's, "The other half comes to( the privy coffer ot the State." _ Mr ■> Moore continued feared that this poliey would render men less anxious to accumulate, for to the class whose ambition it is to leave great fortunes and be talked abeut after their death it, will attract more attention, and indeed be a somewhat nobler ambition to have enormous sums paid over to the State from their fortunes. There remains, then, only one mode of nsiog great fortunes : the administration during their lives by its possessors. This, then, is the duty of the man of wealth : First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance \ to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of these dependent upon him ; and after doing so to consider all snrploa revenues which come to him, simply as trust funds which he is called upon to | administer, and strictly bound to administer in the manner which in his judgment is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community—the man of wealth thus becoming the agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service bis superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer ; doing for them better than they could or would do for themselves. We are met here with the difficulty of determining what are modetate sums to leave to members of the family ; what is modest, unostentatious living j what is the test of extravagance. The answer is, it is as impossible to name exact amounts or aotions as it is to define good manners, good taste, or the rules of propriety. Public sentiment is quick to kn>w and to feel what offends these. So in the ease of wealth. Whatever makes one conspicuous offends the canon. If any family be ehiely knewn for display, for extravagance in home, table, equippage—for enormous sums ostentatiously spent in any form upon itself—if these bs its chief distractions we have no difficulty in estimating its nature or culture. And now, what are the best uses to which surplus wealth can be put? I have already spoken against indiscriminate almsgiving, bat everyone has, of course, eases of individuals brought to his own knowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good ; in almsgiving, the main consideration should be to help only those who will help themselves, to provide part of the means by whioh these who desire to improve may do so. But the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon whioh the aspiring can rise—parks, places of reoreation, by which men are helped in body and mind ; works of aH certain to give pleasure and improve the public taste ; and public institutions of various kinds, which will improve the general eondition ot the people. I should like te see an institution started for the children of vieious parents. Let us take a ehild born of vieious, drunken parents: As soon as their child is able to bee or steal the parents send it out to get the wherewithal to enable them to follow their miserable career, and as a necessary result the child in time commits some crime that lands it in gaol. I would take the child away from its miserable surrounding!, and I would say to its vicious parents: ' You are not doing your duty to your offspring, and as it belongs more to the community than it dees to yen, I will see that it gets eyery opportunity of growing up an honest, law-abiding citizen. In the course of nature, you parents will die, but this child will grow up and have children, and it depends on the future of this ehild what its.ehildren will be ; therefore, I will teach it the advantages of sobriety, truth, and honesty.' Again, is it right that the aged and infirm, who are only fit to sit by their firesidesjjshould be forced to toil to live ? No! And I weald start a fund for their support, to be placed in the hands of a board, and branches established throughout the country. I would not have thein stinted ; I would not have them half starved, as in a workhouse. No, let them live in their own homes, and in the way they have been accustomed to; they should not be looked en with scorn, but receive the support as an acknowledged right. They have worked for the oommunity ; the community sheuld now work for them. Why is it that men and women, too, have to starve from childhood, so that they become bent and worn, like old men and women, though yet young in years ? Because on account of the low rate of wages they are forced to toil to live, and to work long hours too. Wages must rise, and hours must be shortened. Women have enough to do in their own households without all thiß extra work. Every msn should receive sufficient to support his family. Now with regard to the townships. I hold that they should be practically the property of the people and not j of individuals. How hayo these individuals j administered then- trust P In a large number i of coses they haye grossly abused it. Townships should be placed in the hands of local bodies. The present owners should be paid a reasonable price, deducting the cost of repairs to houses ÜBfit to live in. These local bodies would see to sanitary arrangements, etc., and see that all houses were fit to live ita, and kept so. They would then fix a moderate rent forj the several houses, and in this I think they should pay a due regard to the,

oiroumstuno'-s of the householders in cases of poverty, for I think all have the right to the shelter of a roof. If a man wished to buy a house so mueh the better, let him do so; but if he wishes to let it afterwards it must bs let at the rent fixed, previous to the sale, by the local bodies. And with regard to the country, there should be lock' bodies appointed who should have the fixing of rests in their hands, They should fix a fair rent en a farm, for instanee, and the farmer should be able to live there as long as he pleased, and reap the fruits of his industry at this rent, unless he broke his oontract in any way, and even then his landlord would not haye the power to evict hma, but ho must abide the decision of the local I think that every man ohould have the right to a comfortable home, and I think it is the duty of every roan who has a large amount of land in a country district to see that the dwellerß in that distriot have at least sufficient land to build a house on. If a man will net do his duty, but die possessed of an enormous ameunt of land, as I said before, it should be heavily taxed for the benefit ef the community. Thus then should wealth be distributed. Accumulation will be free 5 distribution will be free, and the rioh the rioh man will be trustee for the poor. But you will say: This is all very well, but hjw are you going to bring it about? I answer that public sentiment is turning in this direction ; that the day is already dawning when the public verdiot will be that the man who dies leaving behind him millions ef available wealth, which was his to administer during life s that the man who dies thus rioh, dies disgraced. The mere faot that such a stir is being made in the world on this question shews that sooiety is beginning to recognise the spirit whioh should animate the distribution of wealth. And this is my third and last head, What is that spirit ? It is the spirit of self-Baorifiee, that spirit which seeks to make life better, nobler, happier for others, and not that spirit whioh only seeks more enjoyment for itself. It is the very lesson we have been tanght by Jesus Christ Himself. What was His life P It was one long life of selfsacrifice. He Buffered and He died for us. Society is beginning to realise that their motto must now be, instead ef ' Every man for himself,' 'Ho man liveth unto himself, and no man dieth unto himself.' Let us never forget that we are told to love our neighbour as ourselves. We should be one vast co-operative sooiety working together for one an©there' good. If wo want to see wealth justly distributed, if we want to sea the world happy we mast learn the Gospel of Jeasus Christ, and the foundation of all is Leve, and ' God is Love.' " At the oonolusion of the paper, criticisms ware made by the Revs. Archibald, Barclay, and Dr. Fish, and Messrs Aitken, Wilson Smith, A; Sherratt, and B. Y. JTergusson: A very hearty vete of thanks was accorded to Mr Moore for his able and instructive paper. A general meeting of the members was then held, when Mr Aitken, tha president, in aocerdanse with notlee given, moved that ladies be admitted members ef the sooiety. A disouesion took place and finally the motion was carried. At a meeting of the committee held afterwards some small aeoonnts were passed for payment, and the meeting terminated.